Back
2009 Supreme(Cal) 474
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA & MD. ABDUL GHANI, JJ.
District Primary School Council, Bankura
Vs.
Janardan Mukherjee & Ors.
M.A.T. No. 2970 of 2005
Decided on: July 8, 2009
Advocate Appeared:
Subir Sanyal, Arabinda Bhattacharjee, Sujata Saxena for the appellant;
Probal Kumar Mukherjee, Rajat Dutta for the respondent;
Keshab Bhattacharjee, Hare Krishna Halder for the State.
Judicial pronouncements and consent orders passed by the court are binding upon all the parties including the respondents, and cannot be challenged in a collateral proceeding on the ground of validity and legality of the consent.
Headnote:
EDUCATION - APPOINTMENT OF PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHERS - EXEMPTED CATEGORY - LAND LOOSERS - JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS - CONSENT ORDERS - DIVISION BENCH ORDERS - BINDING EFFECT - SETTING ASIDE AND REMANDING SPEAKING ORDER FOR FRESH HEARING - VALIDITY - WRIT JURISDICTION - SCOPE - EMPLOYMENT AS A MATTER OF RIGHT - COMPENSATION FOR LAND ACQUISITION - RELEVANCE.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, who were aspirants for the post of primary school teachers and belonged to the exempted category, were not given appointment despite being empanelled and interviewed. They filed a writ petition in 1988, which was allowed by the court directing the respondents to issue letters of appointment to the petitioners. The respondents appealed against the order, and the Division Bench passed an order by consent that the names of the petitioners may be sympathetically considered for being added in the next panel for the purpose of appointment as primary school teachers. Despite this order, no steps were taken by the respondents, and the petitioners filed another writ petition in 1991, which was also disposed of by the court directing the respondents to include the names of the petitioners in the next panel and give them preference of absorption as primary school teachers as far as practicable. However, the respondents did not take any action, and the petitioners filed a third writ petition in 1999, which was disposed of by the court directing the respondents to consider the respective claim of the petitioners for appointment as belonging to the exempted categories and dispose of the matter by a reasoned order within two months.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the learned Trial Judge was justified in setting aside and quashing the speaking order passed by the President of the District Primary School Council and remanding the matter for fresh hearing, as the President had made an endeavour to unsettle the settled issue by holding that the petitioners did not belong to the exempted category and their lands were not acquired, which was contrary to the judicial pronouncements of the court. The court also held that the orders of the Division Bench and the Single Bench of Justice Yusuf, on consent and consensus, were binding upon all the parties including the respondents, and could not be challenged in a collateral proceeding on the ground of validity and legality of the consent.
Issues: 1. Whether the learned Trial Judge was justified in setting aside and quashing the speaking order passed by the President of the District Primary School Council and remanding the matter for fresh hearing? 2. Whether the orders of the Division Bench and the Single Bench of Justice Yusuf, on consent and consensus, were binding upon all the parties including the respondents?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the learned Trial Judge was justified in setting aside and quashing the speaking order passed by the President of the District Primary School Council and remanding the matter for fresh hearing, as the President had made an endeavour to unsettle the settled issue by holding that the petitioners did not belong to the exempted category and their lands were not acquired, which was contrary to the judicial pronouncements of the court. 2. The court also held that the orders of the Division Bench and the Single Bench of Justice Yusuf, on consent and consensus, were binding upon all the parties including the respondents, and could not be challenged in a collateral proceeding on the ground of validity and legality of the consent.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the court directed the President to rehear the matter in terms of the order of the learned Trial Judge and take a decision taking note of the earlier Division Bench order and also the order of Justice Yusuf without fail, and for this purpose time limit was extended till 10 weeks from the date of communication of this order.
K. J. Sengupta, J.
1. This is an appeal against judgment and order of the learned Trial Judge dated 20th July, 2005 by which His Lordship has been pleased to allow writ application filed by the respondents before us, with a speaking order passed by Chairman, District Primary School, Bankura was challenged. By the impugned judgment the learned Trial Judge after having set aside the said order directed the Chairman again to consider the issue in terms of earlier order passed by the learned Single Judge, dated 9th January, 2002 and in the light of the observation made by the learned Trial Judge. The short fact for which the action as aforesaid was brought is stated hereunder.
2. Respondents before us are the aspirants for the post of primary school teachers and they are amongst exempted category. The fathers of the respondents had been uprooted from their respective places of residences as the land was acquired for construction of Kangsabati Project. Under the scheme they were entitled to be appointed to the post of primary school teacher and as such their names were classified as an exempted category and they were called for interview. In spite of their appearance in the interview and selection no step was taken for giving appointment. In the aforesaid background the petitioners had filed writ petition in 1988 in this Hon'ble Court, being Matter No. 1170 of 1988. By an order dated 19th May, 1988, the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajit Kumar Sengupta (as His Lordship then was) was pleased to dispose of the writ petition by directing the respondent No.8 to forthwith issue letters of appointment to the petitioners as primary school teachers on the basis of interview already taken on 20th September, 1981, in the light of the Government Circular being Annexure 'C' to the petition. The District Inspector of Schools was also further directed to approve of the appointment in accordance with rule.
3. The said judgment and order was appealed against by the President, Ad Hoc Committee, District School Board, Bankura, and the said appeal was disposed of by the following orders:
"During the course of hearing the parties agree that the names of the writ petitioners may be sympathetically considered for being added in the next panel for the purpose of appointment as primary school teacher. Such being the position all interim orders are vacated."
In spite of the aforesaid order passed on consent, by the Division Bench no step was taken as such subsequently another writ petition was filed by the petitioners in 1991. The said writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 18th November, 1991 by the Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.M. Yusuf (as His Lordship then was). While disposing of the said writ petition it was observed and ordered as follows:
"After hearing the learned Advocates for the parties I pass following order:
It is an admitted position that petitioners belonged to untrained categories and are candidates for the primary school teachers. A panel was prepared on 19th September, 1991 but in that panel the names of the petitioners did not figure because they belonged to exempted categories.
By consensus of the parties, it is ordered that the names of the petitioners who belonged to exempted category shall be included when the next panel will be prepared and the petitioners shall be given preference of absorption as primary school teachers as far as practicable by the authorities. At the time of absorption if age bar stands in the way the same shall be condoned.
In spite of the said order passed by the Single Bench no action was taken by the respondents. The petitioners were compelled to file third writ petition in W.P. No. 1403 (W) of 1999. By this order the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aloke Kumar Chakraborti (as His Lordship then was) pleased to dispose of the same by directing the respondents to consider the respective claim of the petitioners for appointment as belonging to the exempted categories and disposed of the matter by a reasoned order within the peri
